I think it should be a fundamental constitutional right.
The Oregon Death with Dignity Act, by voter initiative, allows for physician-assisted suicide for the terminally ill, mentally competent individuals subject to several restrictions. Once Bush got into office, his evangelical Attorney General attempted to use federal statutes regulating the use of prescription medication to overturn the Oregon law. (So much for Republicans being federalists and conservatives...that's when I stopped voting Republican.)
The Supreme Court has implied several "constitutional rights" from the scant text of the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution ("due process"), which are premised on the notion that to have a real functioning democracy, one should have certain inalienable rights not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights. One of the most controversial is the right to privacy, which covers a large - e.g., right to not have the government interfere in family matters (except incest, statutory rape, and polygamy), the right to keep the government from making a woman carry a child to term (subject to a variety of restrictions after the fetus is viable). That said, shouldn't the right to end your own life to stop the pain of an incurable terminal disease (with the restrictions similar to those allowed under Oregon statutes) be a fundamental civil right?
2006-11-30 04:24:06
·
answer #1
·
answered by Steven B 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
It's a choice for a person who feels s/he is suffering from a terminal illness and who feels her/his quality of life isn't what it was, should be, or can be again.
It's a humane way for a person to leave this world in a peaceful manner instead of suffering what might be or will be a painful death.
I think it's a preferable option to the only other option for the suffer: Suicide. If the suffer commits suicide, there are several outcomes: 1. The chosen method fails; 2. Someone intervenes; 3. The chosen method works but is extremely painful; and 4. The chosen method works and death is peaceful.
We can euthanise our animals when they are suffering from some terminal illness or injury, why are humans held above this? It's the sufferer choosing to be euthanised and as long as that person is deemed capable of making her/his own decisions, this particular decision should be respected.
2006-11-30 12:17:34
·
answer #2
·
answered by sanguis_draco 1
·
1⤊
0⤋
Well, if you want to think positive then here are some, For the record I only agree with this for people who could not live off of life support.
1. It eliminates the people who are not going to be anything but a burden on socitey....meaning what good is a person doing who can't ever get out of bed or get off of life support.
2. The cost of keeping those people alive is very expensive.....why make a family incure thousands of dollars of bills for someone who has no chance of living off of life support
2006-11-30 12:10:06
·
answer #3
·
answered by yetti 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
A person, if able to, can make a choice if they wish to continue suffering or to have their life ended.
When you are 40 years old, have developed cancer and it has spread to the liver, pancreas, throat, lungs, brain and the person is told there is no more that can be done for them, a person should be able to decide if they wish to continue their life or put an end to the 10 years that they have suffered. Until you have walked in someones shoes who has suffered I do not think anyone should be able to say what you can do with your life.
2006-11-30 12:15:21
·
answer #4
·
answered by Molly 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
It can end suffering for someone who is dying. Some people are old and sick and in pain - with no chances of getting better. If they are at peace with the fact they are going to die, and are in agony everyday, then they should be allowed to end their life.
2006-11-30 12:07:40
·
answer #5
·
answered by smellyfoot ™ 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
If someone is dying of a illness and is in sound mind I feel it should be there choice. We treat animals with this compassion and won`t let them suffer.
2006-11-30 12:16:44
·
answer #6
·
answered by hardhead 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I have a friend who is about to pass on from cancer at this point he is on 380mg of morphine, paralyzed, legs arms and stomach are splitting open and oozing water would you want to live like that, not I, they shot horses don't they?
2006-11-30 12:12:15
·
answer #7
·
answered by JACKIE H 1
·
2⤊
0⤋
It allows people to choose for themselves whether or not they want to die, it is a matter of choice.
2006-11-30 12:05:52
·
answer #8
·
answered by Docbrown 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
The surplus population is disposed of.
Plus it provides material for Soylent Green.
2006-11-30 12:05:50
·
answer #9
·
answered by kingstubborn 6
·
1⤊
2⤋
You don't have to prop grandpa up in the corner anymore.....
2006-11-30 12:05:51
·
answer #10
·
answered by Scotty 6
·
0⤊
0⤋